These people are totally freaky and would have us back living in caves if they had their way. Are they too thick to realise that this price rise affects the poor more than everyone because it increases the cost of lorries delivering supplies to shops and,of course,this increase is put on to the cost of food! For example, if your food bill rises by,say, £2 per week,if you are earning £1000 pounds a week,it is nothing but if you are earning only £100 per week,it is a fair chunk!

Oil only burns once, so it will run out. The world will have to live with declining oil and the price will go higher and higher as the oil wells dry up and it gets harder and harder to find. It is better to put the price high now so that we develop other systems before this happens. Motorways and airports will be relics and museum pieces to this strange era of oil based hyper-mobility.

This a very good move.

It's time to start reducing income tax, which penalises people for working and VAT, which arbitrarily raises the cost of goods and increase charges on activities which use up limited resources, such as oil.

Although I am in favour of greener cleaner fuels until areas are made safe to walk around and a transport service is reliable I like a lot of other people will still opt to drive. I for one do not relish the thought of having to stand at a bus stop a 6am hoping that a bus will turn up

i want to know where the petrol station in the pic is coz i aint paid those prices for quite some time.

Just the usuaL story, drivers are an easy target to raise money, bring back the fuel blockades

Black Flag wrote:

"This a very good move. It's time to start reducing income tax, which penalises people for working and VAT, which arbitrarily raises the cost of goods and increase charges on activities which use up limited resources, such as oil".

Surely the increases in oil will similarly raise the price of goods. So what's the difference?

Still wet, Behind the Ears, VAT increases the cost of goods arbitrarily, whereas increasing the cost of oil will increase the cost of goods according to how much oil is used in their manufacture and distribution, so it will have less of an effect on those goods which use less oil. This means it will provide a greater incentive for improved efficiency and reduced waste.

Black Flag,

This means it will provide a greater incentive for improved efficiency and reduced waste.

It also means that goods made and transported in this country cost more. That is why we have thousands of foriegn vehicles who pay at least quid a gallon less for fuel over here - and manufactures like HP sauce, Frys Chocolate, McCains Frozen foods, Hollands Pies etc making stuff abroad and importing it.

Joey, if you increase taxes charged for the use of oil, you can reduce other taxes, which reduces the costs that businesses face in other areas.

Even if goods are produced overseas, they have to be transported within the UK, so they don't have an advantage there.

Given the current situation, I'd also levy a charge on any goods vehicle coming into the country based on it's fuel capacity, in order to prevent the use of cheaper overseas fuel.

Black Flag, all very laudable but probably illegal under EU anti-competition law.

Chris: most of Black Flag's ideas are laudible but, sadly, not of this world.

Chris, I’m not an expert on EU law by any stretch of the imagination, but with regard to the fee charged to goods vehicles coming into the country, you’re probably right.

The only way I think it could be made to work legally would be to charge vehicles as they leave the country rather than when they enter, in a similar way to the charge levied on air passengers. The end result would be the same.

Count Bobelesque, I'd like to know how the concept of increasing fuel duty and using the revenue to reduce income tax qualifies as being "not of this world." It’s not exactly rocket science.

Black Flag your ideas are theoretically interesting but inpractical and, as somebody else has pointed out, probably illegal. You appear to have an obsession with land taxation. I can only assume that you don't actually hold any land.

Count, increasing fuel duty is legal and practical. Reducing income tax is legal and practical. If you'd like to tell me where the impracticality, I'd be very interested.

In my experience, a statement like “Black Flag’s ideas are laudable, but sadly, not of this world,” usually means “I don’t like Black Flag’s ideas, but I can’t produce a coherent argument against them, so I’ll attempt to ridicule them instead.”

To answer your other point, I do own my own house, but my status is irrelevant to the validity argument.

Those kinds of poor ad hominem arguments are the hallmark of Catcher, in the Rye. I can only assume you’re the same person using a different name.

Black Flag: your use of the term "ad hominem" says a great deal more about you than I, and perfectly demonstrates your other worldliness. Using terms which you assume (hope) your audience will not understand is not a very clever approach to debate - but no doubt makes you feel superior.

beat me to it Black Flag. Catcher, you're not fooling anyone.

Count/Catcher, if you don’t understand something, you could always do what I do and look it up.

For your benefit, an ad hominem argument is a flawed attempt to refute a claim by attacking the person making it, rather than attacking the substance of the claim.

marc: drat

Black Flag: I am quite aware of the meaning - you do try to patronise don't you.

So Catcher/Count, you criticise me for using a term which you imply is so obscure that I should assume nobody would understand what it means, then call me patronising when I explain the meaning!

I think your use of two identities is very appropriate given your self-contradictory approach.

Black Flag: a simple question - when you used the latin term did you assume that I/the majority of posters would understand its meaning? Be honest.

If the answer is yes, then you are in fool's paradise regarding the general educational standards of our beloved brother posters (and I don't believe you are).

If the answer is no, then you set out deliberately to impress, patronise, talk down to etc. In the event you, yet again, come across as a sciolist - a pretender to knowledge.

You would make an excellent politician and I predict that you are somehow involved in local politics - at a lowly level of course. Am I right?

What a surprise. It's the usual case of "lets punish the hard working guy who gets off his backside to earn a decent living and as a result thereof can afford a decent motor". So what happens - lets waste loads of tax payers money on public transport for fat people and the unemployable to vandalise and use as a public toilet. And give me a break regarding environmental issues - what happens in the future will simply happen irrespective of whether or not I choose to drive or walk to work.

Count/Catcher, I did think there was a reasonable chance that you would know what an ad hominem argument is. Your approach to debate may be poor at times, but your vocabulary appears to be good.

I am not involved in politics and I don’t think I’d make a good politician. I’m interested in reaching conclusions through reasoned debate, whereas politicians seem to flourish by exploiting the ignorance of a large part of the electorate by using ad hominem and straw man arguments, which I’ve no interest in getting involved in.

I think local politics may be more your sort of thing; throughout this thread, posters such as Joey and Chris have challenged my argument by questioning the reasoning. On the other hand, you’ve attempted to refute my argument by questioning my motives, while saying nothing about the issue at hand. That kind of approach is a staple of politicians.

Black Flag wrote:
"Joey and Chris have challenged my argument by questioning the reasoning"

Taken from todays Daily Mail:
"Cadbury to axe 700 jobs at UK factories... and move production to Poland"

That is 700 people who will not be paying Income Tax ( they may well find other jobs but they will stop others from getting them - so it is a net loss) Cadbury's will not be paying inflated energy costs in both manufacture and distribution of their products.